A field researcher is a researcher who is in front of its experimental installation at the study site or in the study area in the process of the investigation and experimentation. A researcher offices, one who has never seen an experiment, but it is in his office waiting for the data. These are all PhD students who prepare. While you think dear researchers and students?
The goal of scientific research is to discover laws and postulate theories that can explain natural or social phenomena, or in other words, build scientific knowledge. Depending on the purpose of scientific research, the research projects can be grouped into three types: exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory.
The research is broadly classified in:
1. Fundamental or basic research and;
2. Applied research.
Research and Development (R&D) represents the activities industry undertake to innovate and introduce new products and services or to improve their existing offerings.
Both are very important and complement each other. The results obtained by field researchers can be further evaluated and processed in silico by office researchers.
I believe it depends on the field of study and the paradigm the researcher is working on! In certain field of studies like economy and finance, usually, the secondary data over a decade or two are more important than the primary data, especially when you employ econometric methodology. In fields like social science, the primary data is usually more important as to grasp what occurs in real life and within a specific context. Also, in terms of paradigms, the non-positivist paradigm with an inductive way of thinking goes systematically through the first data channel. While for the positivist paradigm, depending on the research problem and objectives you might use both. So, I do agree with Jean-Pierre Jost as he said both are complementary.
By the way, this question within the actual racial context in USA reminds me about the Malcolm X metaphors on the Field negro and the house negro!
Both are equally important but if i did have to choose....field researchers are a step ahead reason bn that...discovery is always key despite office researchers taking analysis further to establish a logical conclusion.
In fait, or dependsin fact, it depends on the subject. both can be useful for research development.
the field researcher needs the office researcher and live towards that
in fact, it depends on the subject. both can be useful for research development.
the field researcher needs the office researcher and live towards that
It depends upon the area of research. Both are equally important. Most of the times, field researchers are a step ahead than office researcher because some time situation is different at ground than what we imagine while sitting in the office.
A researcher offices is one who collects data from several field researchers, in order to explore, analyze and draw conclusions that help the manager make decisions. These can have a direct impact on society and on the economy.
Experimentation + Analysis = making a decision.
A field researchers conduct in-depth research (recherche pointue).
A researcher offices assemble several in-depth research to analyze an event (climatic, hydrological, hydrogeological and environmental)
- Badges
- Science topic